Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Dan I think this is the kind of thing Mr. Judge is talking about. So here in this paragraph you're saying that you've "escaped the box". You've left systems behind, and are doing your own thing. You are no longer "trapped" by a system or a lineage or anything from the past. You are an autonomous are free of old ideas and the past.

Here again, you're supporting that idea. But a small shift is happening. Here you are saying that that the "heart of their budo" is in what you are doing. If you are autonomous, and un-trapped by system, why di you feel the need to reference, Aikido, Daito Ryu Taiji and Wing Chun? You're pointing at systems, and using them are support for you points.

Ah, here in the last part of the post you've left a "backdoor". This is a rhetorical device, used to give yourself an "out". You've said that you are free of system, through out this post. But at the end here you give yourself an out- you say that what you are doing is the "foundation of those systems", in essence saying that you are a part of every system, because you are at the foundation of those systems. You are now giving yourself permission to talk again about systems, and being part of them. But you're not part of the systems- you are free of them. So why reference them. Shouldn't you just be speaking of what you are doing?

This is unfair. In the beginning you say how you are fee of systems, and have left them behind, likening yourself to Ueshiba and Bruce Lee. Then at the end, you say that you're doing the same things that all the systems do, so you are in essence part of all systems.

See you're playing both sides, that, I believe is the kind of thing Mr. Judge is getting at.

*Sigh*
Good Lord, Chris
I would love to open my browser some day and find a post by you that had a positive spin on anything I say.
Wouldn't it be nice to ask me what I meant?
How about asking me for further clarification?
Good grief man..can't you see how shitty this sounds?
The insinuation you offer (that you almost ALWAYS offer) is negative and judgmental and smells of some nefarious motivations on my part.
Thanks!!
It is highly personal as it directly speaks to motives and alludes to some agenda I am supposed to have. It always skirts just past open insult.

Okay. In an attempt once again to be nice in the face of this kind of conversation you like to have with me.....

Traditions
I had to escape or leave the strictness of kata in two systems I trained in, in order to deepen the movement in those systems... in order to transcend them. Yes, transcend my teacher could no longer throw or do waza on me.
I needed to go back to freestyle sparring with weapons and fighting without weapons in order to more fully understand how to use the body skills that were in those systems and transcend them. Yes, transcend as I could use aiki in freestyle fighting in a way I had not seen.
Interestingly enough my friends in those systems get it and fully agree with what I just said.

That said, although I no longer am active in them, I remain supportive of traditional systems to this day

Why I have refused to boost or teach a system
I think it best for the moment to remain neutral when I am addressing people in Budo from seven continents. We stand in rooms devoid of affiliation and ranks and we meet as friends. They are not burdened to "represent" nor am I.

*Careful with your reply to me. You don't have to agree with what I just said, but it is the truth and my actual motivations behind what I am choosing to do. I am dealing with you with an open hand. Any further inference that I am lying or am being coy or dishonest will permanently end our discussions. I for one don't want to see that happen. Do you?

I guess one of the things about me is, I prefer following systems to following individuals. I have loyalties to individuals - but I seem to prefer training with individuals who offer me a path to a system that I can convince myself is "legit."

Thank you very much for these words! They struck me deeply.
You touch, how the way of my own development changed during the last years.
And you touch, how may teaching and the relation to the people who train with me in my classes changed.

When I met Endo Seishiro, I met someone who is teaching his own aikidō. His aikidō is different, he himself refers to it as "strange". And he is known for making clear, that what he does is singular.
Not everybody likes this singularity and this strangeness. Because you can't go and follow his stuff and then come back and integrate it to what you have allways done and what the people in your dōjō at home are allways doing. I ditn't realize immidiately, but only over time: I wasn't longer following a certain system, but was following an individual.

This has consequenses for teaching: "Why do you change our regular way of doing ikkyo?", "Why do you change the footwork?" "Why do you stay in the line of the attack???" And - most important: "Where does this come from?!?!?"
I could not longer refer to what was done by a lot of teachers in our "system".
I could not longer refer to the system of what we do, how we do it and how we will learn it over time. I could only say: "This is what I (individual) understood and brought with me from practicing with Endo sensei (individual)."

I was very lucky - and I am happy - and thankfull in a very deep way that the people praciticing with me in my classes followed this change.

I think a system (whatever that really is) can be important to give safety, confidence, security. But if we ourselve want to become an individual a next step can be to follow another individual, i.e. a teacher.

I would simply say:
You're still in the box.... that I have escaped from.
Why would I go back to systems that produce men that face me and want to change once they see?
Ueshiba got free of systems and refused to be trapped by them.It was the same with Bruce Lee. I refuse to be trapped.

As far as your lack of interest in me because I don't define our defend "a system?" that's fine. All I can offer is that at the end of decades of training in them with Asian legends.... men come and there I sit....waiting, and take their system apart and show them what is at the core of martial movement.

How is it that teachers from Aikido, and Daito ryu as well as Taiji and Win chun tell me I am addressing the heart of their budo?
How can that even be possible.
a long list of people here on aikiweb have flat out stated that the people who follow me are idiots and other unkind descriptions of their judgement.
I ask you. What if those who have come and trained...were right after all?

It is the study of the foundation of all the great arts that is the key to truly understanding them, and defeating them.
It is freeing and joyful and healing and it gets better as you age. But to my knowledge you will never find it taught...contained within in a system.

And that said...how is it that everyone who trains with me, can go back to their systems and train this while doing them?
Because what I am teaching is the foundation of those systems. Sometimes you have to step outside in order to really see what is going on.
It's called a vantage point
And it is why I see...what you cannot see.

*Sigh*
Good Lord, Chris
I would love to open my browser some day and find a post by you that had a positive spin on anything I say.
Wouldn't it be nice to ask me what I meant?
How about asking me for further clarification?
Good grief man..can't you see how shitty this sounds?
The insinuation you offer (that you almost ALWAYS offer) is negative and judgmental and smells of some nefarious motivations on my part.
Thanks!!

Dan I keep seeing this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be personal, I'm just pointing out what I see. To me, the way you write sounds like you are trying to win all angles of conversation, while not addressing anything. I'm sorry that it sounds that way to me. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. It's not personal, I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm simply explaining how I see what you're writing.

Quote:

It is highly personal as it directly speaks to motives and alludes to some agenda I am supposed to have. It always skirts just past open insult.

I'm not trying to insult you.

Quote:

Okay. In an attempt once again to be nice in the face of this kind of conversation you like to have with me.....

Traditions
I had to escape or leave the strictness of kata in two systems I trained in, in order to deepen the movement in those systems... in order to transcend them. Yes, transcend my teacher could no longer throw or do waza on me.

If you are making a comparison here between Aikido and something else, unless you're talking about a sport Aikido, being an Uke means falling for Nage. If your teacher could not throw you, it was something strange you were doing, and it wasn't Aikido Ukemi. If you are talking about sport martial arts, your "teacher" or "coach" doesn't have to be able to throw you. Most professional (all?) boxers can out box their coaches, that doesn't mean that they know more about boxing then the coach does. Transcending a system doesn't simply mean you can "out play" your teacher. It means developing a method that goes beyond what the system your teacher teaches can do.

Quote:

I needed to go back to freestyle sparring with weapons and fighting without weapons in order to more fully understand how to use the body skills that were in those systems and transcend them. Yes, transcend as I could use aiki in freestyle fighting in a way I had not seen.
Interestingly enough my friends in those systems get it and fully agree with what I just said.

I have experience with this myself. I understand the power of this type of training. However, if you could use what you call "aiki" in free styles practice and Ueshiba and Takeda could use what you would call "aiki" in freestyle situations, how is it that you transcended their systems? If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method? If you've created a good way to transmit this power to others (and it sounds like you believe that you have) then why not simply say that you are teaching your own system?

Quote:

That said, although I no longer am active in them, I remain supportive of traditional systems to this day

So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.

Can you see it from my perspective? It seems like you want the best of both worlds. On one hand you want to say that what you are doing in original, better and different. And on the other hand you are saying that what you do is proven by people like Ueshiba and Takeda, and other "aiki" students can gain from what you are teaching, because it's basically the same thing Ueshiba and Takeda were talking about.

"So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems?"
I think he also said he found what is behind the foundational movement to "systems" allowing him to transcend them. He supports them because he realizes that there were standouts in each art who also realized it, such as the ones he has pointed to. I also think he said while it is unique, it is not unique to him, an important point and often overlooked.

￼￼￼￼￼￼A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your effort. That which is on the day of laughter is also now.
Ramana Maharishi

The problem here, as I see it, is that old saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt." That is, if someone is alive and actively participating in Internet forums here with all of the other human beings, he must be just some schmoe who is talking crazy talk. In order for anyone to have any credibility at all, apparently he has to be 1. Dead, 2. An Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking, or 3. Dead, and an Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking.

Demetrio, has it occurred to you that some of the people writing here actually CAN DO everything they're writing about, and that others CAN DO some at least some of the things being written about, and are on their way to growing and excelling in those skills? It's not some misty legend, but reality happening right now, perhaps even history in the making. And it's most definitely not being embellished, aggrandised or poorly documented... just the opposite, in fact, and right here on AikiWeb and in private scholarly research and writing. So, it will more likely be the stuff of academically written martial arts histories that future scholars will turn to for furthering their own research, rather than become "legends, stories, folklore and narratives."

If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method?

Have you ever heard Dan claim this stuff is "his system" or his creation? Quite the opposite: He's arguing that Takeda / Ueshiba had this, but (most of) their students didn't get it. It's being rediscovered.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.

Have you considered that Dan's intentions are good? That he actually cares about this stuff. And that he spent years trying to discover it himself. It wasn't even his idea to start teaching it outside his own dojo / small group of friends. He was asked time and time again by a senior Aikido instructor and finally decided to help people in the Aikido community find back to something that was lost.

Consider the facts: He does not have any organization, he does not give out any titles, grades or ranks. There are no uniforms used during the seminars - just your regular sweatpants and T-shirts. And nobody's allowed to call him sensei. How this can be about him and "his system" is beyond me...

I'm happy he offers his knowledge here and in seminars - and I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe you should, too, while it's still possible?

The problem here, as I see it, is that old saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt." That is, if someone is alive and actively participating in Internet forums here with all of the other human beings, he must be just some schmoe who is talking crazy talk. In order for anyone to have any credibility at all, apparently he has to be 1. Dead, 2. An Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking, or 3. Dead, and an Asian Grandmaster Shihan of the Umpteenth Dan ranking.

Cady,
Going in the Top Ten

￼￼￼￼￼￼A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your effort. That which is on the day of laughter is also now.
Ramana Maharishi

Demetrio, has it occurred to you that some of the people writing here actually CAN DO everything they're writing about, and that others CAN DO some at least some of the things being written about, and are on their way to growing and excelling in those skills?

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

But has it also occurred to you that there are more than just one individual with such skills, and who openly teach them?

Let's step out of the kingdom of the one-eyed fellow, and into the forest where trees fall but there is no-one there to hear them. Just because these other individuals do not post on AikiWeb, does it mean they don't exist?

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

Does that mean other "non similar arts" are not blind? Fighting, MMA, BJJ being more realistic martially thereby "seeing". I would like to see that tried not even suggesting on Dan, because its crude and ugly to suggest it and the ensuing aftermath will certainly be. It is same reason it very hard to get your hands on the Chinese masters let alone fight with them. After you get your butt handed to you trying to pankrase one of them, then you are going to prostrate yourself before them and say "Teach me master" ??
Not likely

Last edited by Garth : 01-04-2013 at 06:11 PM.

￼￼￼￼￼￼A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your effort. That which is on the day of laughter is also now.
Ramana Maharishi

Have you ever heard Dan claim this stuff is "his system" or his creation? Quite the opposite: He's arguing that Takeda / Ueshiba had this, but (most of) their students didn't get it. It's being rediscovered.

No I haven't. That is my problem. Is Dan teaching something new? Or is Dan teaching someone else's system? What is Dan teaching, because from Dan I hear a little of both. That is the part that sounds strange to me. If Dan "Transcended" older systems, then he's teaching his own system, right? Well if Dan isn't teaching his own system, then he's teaching someone else's system, right? We can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Have you considered that Dan's intentions are good? That he actually cares about this stuff. And that he spent years trying to discover it himself.

Yes, I have. And he might be, I'll even say that right now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and asking him to clear up things that are hard to understand from the way he writes.

Quote:

It wasn't even his idea to start teaching it outside his own dojo / small group of friends. He was asked time and time again by a senior Aikido instructor and finally decided to help people in the Aikido community find back to something that was lost.

This is kind of misleading. Dan have been a big promoter of his stuff for many years. For a very long time he's been on the internet talking about how he understands stuff ( I say stuff because it's changed a bit over the years) that most people in the Aikido world don't get. The Aikido community is ripe for this kind of thing, so of course he was eventually asked to come and show his stuff. He must also be pretty good at it, because he's still around, and lot's of people on the net seem to like him. But you can't exactly paint Dan as a humble, quiet guy who doesn't want to tell others that they are wrong and he is right. I don't think that's a bad thing, sometimes we need that sort of thing.

Quote:

Consider the facts: He does not have any organization, he does not give out any titles, grades or ranks. There are no uniforms used during the seminars - just your regular sweatpants and T-shirts. And nobody's allowed to call him sensei. How this can be about him and "his system" is beyond me...

The flip side of this is, Dan is always saying that he understand things others don't. And that if others would do what he's doing they would become great martial artists. He is always talking about how other systems don't teach what needs to be taught. He's always saying the he has a method that has proven results, and that most people switch over to what he's doing when they see it. To me it sounds like he's talking about his own system, but he say's he's not.

So is it a unique system, or is it someone else's system? It has to be one or the other.

Quote:

I'm happy he offers his knowledge here and in seminars - and I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe you should, too, while it's still possible?

All conflated points over issues I never raise or discuss.
Example: I never say these are things only I know. EVER!! I continue to point out they are known elsewhere, and that others know and can do them. Once you know you can spot who knows or doesn't know by what they write and how they move.

This one point alone, among so many others, shows me you really have no ability to hear me, or process what I say to you in a discussion. I have no wish to degrade the discourse so, I wish you well, Chris
Dan

Dan I keep seeing this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be personal, I'm just pointing out what I see. To me, the way you write sounds like you are trying to win all angles of conversation, while not addressing anything. I'm sorry that it sounds that way to me. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. It's not personal, I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm simply explaining how I see what you're writing.

I'm not trying to insult you.

If you are making a comparison here between Aikido and something else, unless you're talking about a sport Aikido, being an Uke means falling for Nage. If your teacher could not throw you, it was something strange you were doing, and it wasn't Aikido Ukemi. If you are talking about sport martial arts, your "teacher" or "coach" doesn't have to be able to throw you. Most professional (all?) boxers can out box their coaches, that doesn't mean that they know more about boxing then the coach does. Transcending a system doesn't simply mean you can "out play" your teacher. It means developing a method that goes beyond what the system your teacher teaches can do.

I have experience with this myself. I understand the power of this type of training. However, if you could use what you call "aiki" in free styles practice and Ueshiba and Takeda could use what you would call "aiki" in freestyle situations, how is it that you transcended their systems? If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method? If you've created a good way to transmit this power to others (and it sounds like you believe that you have) then why not simply say that you are teaching your own system?

So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.

Can you see it from my perspective? It seems like you want the best of both worlds. On one hand you want to say that what you are doing in original, better and different. And on the other hand you are saying that what you do is proven by people like Ueshiba and Takeda, and other "aiki" students can gain from what you are teaching, because it's basically the same thing Ueshiba and Takeda were talking about.

Why do you have to be so stubborn? Some people teach the principles (the so called heart of a system) of a given system, and explore those principles in frameworks (of which are formed through historical and cultural context--which is why some people have to go OUTSIDE of the box because often times the framework is not suited for newer demands/challenges in martial movement) that traditional systems do not provide. Doing this does not necessarily mean that the person is negating or denying the validity of the traditional system--how could he if he is using principles that were derived from the traditional system? There need not be a disconnect in your mind--a person can be teaching Ueshiba and Takeda's aiki, and learned the validity and power of it through freestyle sparring with competent fighters, weapons with competent people that can handle weapons, grappling with trained wrestlers--i.e., frameworks that traditional systems do not offer.

Do you also not understand the notion of innovation? It happens all the time--in technology, in pedagogy, in learning methods, in business management, and in...yes...you guessed it, bujutsu. Would you consider that perhaps some people are teaching the same AIKI that ueshiba and takeda taught but finding ways to streamline their methods so that that acquisition and transmission of skill become more efficient? Can you accept these states of affairs?

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.

And has it occurred to you that in the country of the blind (modern aikido and similar arts) the one eyed man (the one with some IP) is king and the one with 20/20 (like Dan) is divine?

Does that mean other "non similar arts" are not blind? Fighting, MMA, BJJ being more realistic martially thereby "seeing". I would like to see that tried not even suggesting on Dan, because its crude and ugly to suggest it and the ensuing aftermath will certainly be. It is same reason it very hard to get your hands on the Chinese masters let alone fight with them. After you get your butt handed to you trying to pankrase one of them, then you are going to prostrate yourself before them and say "Teach me master" ??
Not likely

Why do you have to be so stubborn? Some people teach the principles (the so called heart of a system) of a given system, and explore those principles in frameworks (of which are formed through historical and cultural context--which is why some people have to go OUTSIDE of the box because often times the framework is not suited for newer demands/challenges in martial movement) that traditional systems do not provide. Doing this does not necessarily mean that the person is negating or denying the validity of the traditional system--how could he if he is using principles that were derived from the traditional system? There need not be a disconnect in your mind--a person can be teaching Ueshiba and Takeda's aiki, and learned the validity and power of it through freestyle sparring with competent fighters, weapons with competent people that can handle weapons, grappling with trained wrestlers--i.e., frameworks that traditional systems do not offer.

Do you also not understand the notion of innovation? It happens all the time--in technology, in pedagogy, in learning methods, in business management, and in...yes...you guessed it, bujutsu. Would you consider that perhaps some people are teaching the same AIKI that ueshiba and takeda taught but finding ways to streamline their methods so that that acquisition and transmission of skill become more efficient? Can you accept these states of affairs?

Hi Lorel
I don't think you are having a discussion that will move forward. Case in point:

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:
So you spend lot's of time learning what Dan is teaching you to do, but that's not actually what gives Dan his special ability. You end up wasting lot's of time, doing something that wasn't actually what gave Dan his ability.'

I think this summarizes what Chris really thinks. What is he saying?
1. Either I'm stupid and don't know what I'm doing
2. People who train with me are stupid and can't tell the difference.
3. It makes a statement that I have not produced anyone with power and to train with me is a waste of time.
BASED ON WHAT?
It is in direct contrast to what everyone has said who did come train isn't it. It is contrary to people feeling the difference themselves and also having felt some of my long terms guys- who some have said are as good as me.

So...in keeping with the OP (my thread) I asked people to address

Quote:

Can we acknowledge the forward progression of IP discussions on the web? How did these discussions start many years ago. It started with those doing IP/aiki being openly derided for stating that this work is different and is the foundation of aikido.
What Happened?
Every....single....Aikido teacher who went to test....failed.
To my knowledge just about every, single, Aikido teacher who went...switched.
Why isn't that mentioned?
For starters:
1. What does it mean, that this has and is... taking place over and over again?
2. What does it mean that it is routinely ignored in the discussion?

These are some pretty serious questions to ask, given that the success rates we are seeing are the result of OUR high standards and hard work.

I think we should begin by talking about those results and why hundreds of teachers (many who are members here who were openly against this) would switch their entire practice to include this. Isn't that a better tact then insinuating all sorts of negative motivations?
....I at least hope that as a discussion it can include a discussion...of those successes not a discussion of the discussion.

Referring to the last line..Has that actually happened? Other than one person..who if you will note chose to make a shining example of all of one Aikido teacher (hint...its all agenda all the time) Nope. Want to know why? They can't discuss it. To do so would be to have to acknowledge that
a. We stepped up. We had fabulous success.
b. It forced a change in those who came
c. It did so because......we were right

Chris Denies any forward progress, denies the public record and testimonies given here and essentially states we now have to prove what we have been talking about.Now?...NOW?
In one fell swoop it is not only off topic,,, but it does exactly what I said people would do. Why? Because there really is nothing to say in counter is there?

So here we are....years in and thousands of people later with various IP guys and Aikido teachers and it's as if we went back in time, with someone who has been here all along.
So, do you really think you are having a discussion that is even remotely productive?

I think this summarizes what Chris really thinks. What is he saying?
1. Either I'm stupid and don't know what I'm doing
2. People who train with me are stupid and can't tell the difference.
3. It makes a statement that I have not produced anyone with power and to train with me is a waste of time.

I can't get into Chris's head to figure out what he was "saying," but, again, I will repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread that I would like to see removed from AikiWeb the kind of rhetoric that criticizes or puts down people because of how or with whom they train.

I can't get into Chris's head to figure out what he was "saying," but, again, I will repeat what I wrote earlier in this thread that I would like to see removed from AikiWeb the kind of rhetoric that criticizes or puts down people because of how or with whom they train.

-- Jun

Jun
What I have always looked for is opportunities........what I see here by some is the rejection of opportunities.

Dan is an opportunity....as it turned out for me an approach changing opportunity that has been a positive addition to how I look at things relating to my Aikido.

I have been taking opportunities since I started Aikido in 1974, and I ask my instructor Harry Ishiska for his permission which he always granted. His thought was always to go where you needed to get what you needed to formulate your individual Aikido.

Is Dan the only opportunity out there....no....and he has never said that he was.......

Again what I see here by many is the rejection of an opportunity.......and with that an effort to remove that opportunity for others....

Dan,
Look it's simple. I'm asking you a single question- do you teach your own system, or do you teach someone else's system? You can replace the word "system" with "approach" or whatever word you choose to describe what it is you are teaching. Or do you teach another system, like Daito ryu, or Aikido, or something that's main points come from someone else.

For example, I teach Aikido. I have lot's of things that I do differently then other Aikido teachers, but most of what I teach is what you would find in many other Aikido schools. I teach someone else's system.

Living in both worlds can be done, but you need to be clear with people about what you are doing. So do you teach your own system or do you teach someone else's?

What I have always looked for is opportunities........what I see here by some is the rejection of opportunities.

I think it's up to the individual what choose to pursue in their path. I think criticizing those who choose differently is entirely non-constructive and that kind of discussion does not belong here on AikiWeb.